3,781 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Evaluate HackerOne / Bugcrowd / Intigriti programs before committing time. Decide signal-to-noise, payout history, response time, scope size, and competition level. Use when the user is considering a new bug bounty target or asking "should I hunt this".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Extract data from subcontractor bid PDFs and produce a comparison spreadsheet. Feeds into /bid-evaluator. Triggers: 'tabulate bids', 'bid comparison', 'compare bids', 'buyout analysis', 'bid tab'.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate an interface from a UX perspective, assessing hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback. Use when the user wants an overall design or UX review—not when the main need is measurable accessibility/performance diagnosis, or final micro-detail polish.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design focused empty states for zero-data, no-results, permission, and error situations with clear value framing, strong CTAs, and less dead chrome. Use when the user mentions blank pages, zero-data screens, no results, permission states, or dead controls—not broader onboarding strategy.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Run the four paper-quality autoraters from PaperOrchestra (arXiv:2604.05018, App. F.3) — Citation F1 (P0/P1 partition + Precision/Recall/F1), Literature Review Quality (6-axis 0-100 with anti-inflation rules), SxS Overall Paper Quality (side-by-side), and SxS Literature Review Quality (side-by-side). TRIGGER when the user asks to "score this paper draft", "evaluate against the benchmark", "compare two papers", or "run the autoraters".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when EZ_math_model needs to convert paper.md to paper.docx, read a DOCX problem statement, preserve equations and tables, or package a modeling report as a Word document.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Deep research with cross-verification and source tiering. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, fact-checking claims, evaluating architectures, or any task requiring verified information. Triggers on "조사해줘", "리서치", "research", "investigate", "fact-check", "비교 분석", "검증해줘".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Deploy, diff, bootstrap, inspect, roll back, or destroy AWS CDK applications with the community CDKD CLI while preserving safe production and state-management boundaries. Use when the user mentions cdkd or CDK Direct, asks for faster CDK deployments in development or test environments, or wants to evaluate whether an existing CDK app can use CDKD. Also use for CDKD import, export, state, events, and deployment troubleshooting. Prefer the upstream AWS CDK CLI for production and for existing CloudFormation-managed stacks unless the user explicitly approves a management migration.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Agent Brain /brain-verify: after build or when evaluating an existing artifact.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Comprehensive audit of a user's entire Claude environment — combines Project audit (six-dimension Project Scorecard, seven anti-patterns) with Global audit (six-dimension Global Layer Scorecard) plus Cross-Layer Alignment Check across all nine layers and Evolutionary Recommendations across four pathways. Produces a unified action plan. Use when user says "full audit of everything," "audit my entire Claude setup," "full stack audit," "comprehensive review of my project and preferences," "check everything," or wants the complete health check of both a specific Project AND their global configuration. Also use when a project audit reveals cross-layer issues that require full-stack visibility. Do NOT use for auditing only a Project (use rootnode-project-audit if available) or only global layers (use rootnode-global-audit if available). Do NOT use for single prompt evaluation (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available). Run on Opus 5 or Sonnet 5 at `high` effort (both defaults); depth reduces on legacy models.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Rebalances context across Memory, Custom Instructions, knowledge files, and User Preferences in Claude Projects. Audits Memory for redundancy, staleness, and misplacement; prescribes optimization including Codification of stable Memory patterns into explicit User Preferences or Project CI rules. Use when user says "optimize my memory," "what should be in my memory," "trim my knowledge files," "reduce my context usage," "rebalance my project," "what should be in my preferences vs memory," or asks whether something belongs in Memory, a knowledge file, or User Preferences. Also trigger on symptom-phrased: "my project feels bloated," "Claude keeps forgetting things," "my context window keeps hitting limits." Activate whenever Memory-layer balance is the primary concern. Do NOT use for full Project audits (use rootnode-project-audit if available), single-prompt evaluation (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available), or global-layer audits that don't touch Project Memory (use rootnode-global-audit if available).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Specialized research and analysis prompt methodology for Claude. Provides 11 tested approaches (3 identity, 4 reasoning, 4 output) for data analysis, policy research, systematic evidence review, investigative research, and research-specific deliverables. Use when building prompts for quantitative data interpretation, evidence-based policy recommendations, literature reviews, causal analysis, hypothesis-driven investigation, or briefing documents. Trigger on: "prompt for data analysis," "research prompt," "policy brief prompt," "literature review prompt," "prompt for investigating," "systematic review prompt," "build a prompt for evidence synthesis," "causal analysis prompt," "briefing document prompt." Also use when user describes a research or analytical task and needs a structured Claude prompt for it. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available) or auditing Claude Projects (use rootnode-project-audit if available).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Eight tested identity approaches for Claude prompts, each shaping depth, vocabulary, reasoning style, and what Claude treats as obvious vs. requiring explanation. Use when the user wants a specific identity template — retrieving, reviewing, customizing, or building a role definition. Trigger on: "give me the Strategic Advisor identity," "show me the identity template for," "I need a Technical Architect role," "build a custom role for," "show me all available identities." Also use when reviewing a prompt's identity layer or when output lacks domain-appropriate depth. Provides 8 tested approaches across strategy, technical, research, communications, and operations domains plus a template for building custom identities. If the user is unsure which identity fits their task, use rootnode-block-selection first if available. Do NOT use for evaluating complete prompts — use rootnode-prompt-validation if available. Do NOT use for full prompt assembly — use rootnode-prompt-compilation if available.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Specialized software engineering prompt methodology for Claude. Use when building prompts for system design, code review, incident response, security analysis, API design, architecture decisions, RFCs, ADRs, runbooks, or technical leadership. Trigger on: "build a prompt for code review," "system design prompt," "SRE prompt," "security review prompt," "incident response prompt," "API design prompt," "architecture decision prompt," "RFC prompt," "runbook prompt." Provides 11 tested approaches across identity, reasoning, and output for engineering analysis. Do NOT use for general coding help, writing code, or debugging — this builds prompts that shape engineering analysis, not code itself. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Tested reasoning approaches for Claude prompts — 18 variants across 6 categories (Analytical, Strategic, Creative, Technical, Research, Comparative). Use when the user wants a specific reasoning template — retrieving, reviewing, customizing, or combining reasoning instructions for a prompt. Trigger on: "give me the Root Cause Diagnosis approach," "show me the reasoning template for," "I need the Evidence Synthesis method," "show me analytical reasoning options," "combine reasoning approaches for," "show me all reasoning variants." Also use when a prompt produces shallow output and the fix is a reasoning upgrade. Provides 18 tested approaches for analytical, strategic, creative, technical, research, and comparison tasks. If the user is unsure which reasoning method fits, use rootnode-block-selection first if available. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts — use rootnode-prompt-validation if available. Do NOT use for project-level audits — use rootnode-project-audit if available.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Designs Claude Code prompts and CC environments. Produces CLAUDE.md drafts, agent topologies, scope-authorization frameworks, halt triggers, Skills/hooks/MCP plans, chat-to-CC handoff specs, and EXECUTION_PLAN.md remediation plans. Five modes: DESIGN (new CC deployments), EVOLVE (updates from friction), RESEARCH (evaluate a CC tool/pattern), TEMPLATE (reusable artifacts), REMEDIATE (consume hygiene findings → produce + execute plan). Do NOT use REMEDIATE for direct cleanup (Cat 1–10 — use rootnode-repo-hygiene Phase 2). Do NOT use for hygiene scanning (rootnode-repo-hygiene), chat prompts (rootnode-prompt-validation), or chat Projects (rootnode-project-audit).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guides selection of identity, reasoning, and output approaches for Claude prompts based on task characteristics. Trigger on: "help me choose an approach," "which approach fits this task," "recommend a prompt pattern," "compare reasoning methods," "map this task to the right approach," "what combination of approaches," "which identity fits," "which reasoning method." Also trigger on symptom-phrased: "my prompt feels generic," "I don't know which approach to use," "my output lacks domain depth." Covers decision-tree logic across 8 identity approaches, 18 reasoning variants, and 10 output formats. After selection, use the relevant catalog skill if available to retrieve full templates. Activate whenever approach-selection across multiple categories is the primary decision. Do NOT use when the user already names a specific approach to retrieve (use the relevant catalog skill directly if available) or for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Independent re-derivation gate for proposed changes during autonomous execution. Evaluates a change (code diff, config edit, engine evolution, schema change) against the work's authority matrix and a 4-check protocol: invariant compliance, scope authorization, detection narrowness, and regression risk. Returns structured JSON with pass/fail per check, an overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT), and blockers. Profile-driven thresholds (strict for unattended runs, lenient for desk supervision). Use when an autonomous agent proposes an engine change, when reviewing a Claude Code-authored modification before merge, or when an unattended profile requires independent re-derivation. Trigger on: "review/approve this proposed change," "critic-gate this," "is this change safe," "is this safe to merge," "should I let this land," "run the critic." Do NOT use for handoff-readiness checks (use rootnode-handoff-trigger-check), general code review, or design-time correctness. Authority matrix required.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Tested output format specifications for Claude prompts. Use when the user wants a specific deliverable structure — retrieving, reviewing, customizing, or building output formatting. Trigger on: "give me the Executive Brief format," "show me the output template for," "I need the Decision Matrix structure," "show me available output formats," "build a custom output format for." Provides 10 ready-to-use structures (executive briefs, technical designs, research summaries, implementation plans, decision matrices, competitive analyses, post-mortems, stakeholder updates, strategic memos, process documentation) plus a custom template, with per-section length guidance and format constraints tested against Claude formatting defaults. If unsure which format fits, use rootnode-block-selection first if available. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available) or choosing reasoning/identity approaches (use rootnode-block-selection if available).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use Therapeutics Data Commons through the PyTDC Python package for registry discovery, approved dataset access, task-aware splits (scaffold, cold-start, temporal, combination), evaluator metrics, benchmark groups, and bounded molecular-oracle workflows. Use this skill to find which TDC datasets exist for a therapeutic task, load them with a split that does not leak, score predictions with the task's own official metric rather than a generic one, and run benchmark groups reproducibly. Also trigger on PyTDC, Therapeutics Data Commons, tdc.single_pred, tdc.multi_pred, ADMET Benchmark Group, scaffold split, get_split, or molecular oracles such as GSK3B, JNK3 and DRD2.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Probe the runtime state of a named feature flag in a CLI binary. Covers the four-pronged evidence protocol (binary strings, live invocation, on-disk state, platform cache), the four-state classification (LIVE / DARK / INDETERMINATE / UNKNOWN), gate-vs-event disambiguation, conjunction-gate handling, and skill-substitution scenarios where a flag appears DARK but the capability is delivered by other means. Use when verifying whether a documented or inferred capability has rolled out, when auditing dark-launched features, or when a prior probe's conclusions need refreshing against a new binary version.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Assess and improve garden soil through testing, amendment, composting, and biodynamic preparations. Covers jar test, spade test, earthworm count, amendment by soil type (clay, sandy, depleted, compacted), composting methods (hot, cold, vermicomposting), no-till practices, cover cropping, and biodynamic preparations 500-508. Use when starting a new garden bed, when plants underperform despite adequate water and light, when transitioning to organic or biodynamic practice, when soil has become compacted or depleted, or when building a composting system.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Qualify a vendor or supplier of GxP-relevant software or services. Covers vendor risk classification, assessment questionnaire design, desk and on-site audit approaches, quality agreement evaluation, SLA review, and ongoing monitoring cadence definition. Use when selecting a new vendor for a GxP-critical system, onboarding a cloud provider for regulated data, performing a periodic re-qualification, when a vendor audit finding requires re-assessment, or when EU Annex 11 or ICH Q10 requires supplier qualification.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Observe and assess a garden using a structured sensory protocol adapted from Coordinate Remote Viewing. Covers pre-entry clearing (meditate checkpoint), Stage I gestalt impression, Stage II sensory layer (leaf, stem, root, soil), Stage III pattern recognition with AOL management, and garden health triage matrix (heal checkpoint). Use before any intervention, when plants show stress symptoms, at seasonal transitions, when evaluating a new garden site, during regular health monitoring, or after extreme weather events such as frost or heat waves.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。